2. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail, on the ground that the Defendant’s act was dismissed due to an act that does not contravene social norms, and on the ground that the lower court stated in its judgment that the illegality was excluded.

The "act that does not violate the social norms" stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Thus, if a certain act satisfies the requirements such as the motive or legitimacy of the act, the legitimacy of the means or method of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method, the balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests, urgency, and supplement that there is no other means or method other than the act, it constitutes a justifiable act (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8530, Feb. 25, 2005). In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it is difficult to recognize the legitimacy of the motive or purpose, as well as considerable acts in the means and method thereof.

Since it cannot be deemed as urgent or inevitable, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant, since the defendant's act does not constitute a justifiable act that does not violate social norms.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.